Cool I will
I've been thinking about this all some more. I wanted to add, there's certainly a class of movies that are too much mood. There still needs to be some sort of coherence behind it, I think.
But yea rhythm is a good way to think of it, I like that. I told this story during 2001, because somehow we had gotten on to James Joyce. But my brother was a minor Joyce scholar, and I always remember him saying to people who struggle reading Ulysses as "too hard": "just read it." It's not necessary to follow every paragraph. It's not necessary to get bogged down in not knowing every reference. Just let it wash over you and keep going and you should fall into its rhythm. And when you do, it's worth it. It's a book to experience.
I do agree that Vertigo maybe isn't quite that level (though I believe 2001 is). There is a story here and it's pretty interesting and it's not nearly as ambiguous as 2001; the point isn't to ignore that. But I think it's a film about Ferguson's mental state, above all. And it sure does succeed in getting that across.

I'm realizing this is my favoritest type of movie: the one less concerned with concrete plot mechanics and more with a cinematic emotional experience. This goes for stuff on the list (2001, say) and not (e.g., a Rushmore which is more of a mood piece than people realize). They don't have to be sad emotion, just mood emotion, films you let wash over you as an experience. I'm left wondering about a lot after seeing Vertigo for the first time since 1996, sure, but that's what the best movies do - stick in your brain and make you work for it. Amy said something like she was 'willing herself to find reasons to like it' and it sounded like a knock, a bit of an insult, but for me, that's what I want a movie to make me do: to search for its center, and its greatness. Greatness doesn't have to be evident to everyone immediately, and just maybe... it shouldn't either. This is how I feel more connected to these top-of-the-list movies - they are true experiential pieces of art and not just 'a cool story I'm watching.'
The ones that hit me like this will be in my top-10 in 50 weeks. I do shuffle my list around a bit all the time as I continue to think, but I feel safe in saying these moodier pieces like Vertigo and 2001 will still be there then.

5/30 - "50 EPISODES SPECIAL"
Me, I'm prob gonna use this week to rewatch a 1 or 2 of the early ones we did, or maybe some that my reaction to was less than the show's or you all's and see if I still feel the same.

I know a few people have posted this in threads, but they get buried and twitter timelines fade, so I thought we could keep this thread up-to-date better (and more easily findable)
Current upcoming episodes:
Ep 5 - The French Connection
Ep 6 - Titanic
Ep 7 - 2001: A Space Odyssey
Ep 8 - Bonnie & Clyde

I assume dancing costume gifs are appropriate for Cameron's birthday? If so happy birthday!
Also I'm not done with the film yet but I'm kind of digging it. But I'll always wonder, how did 'you must win a contest to inherit my money' become a trope?

I never understood the attachment to Tom Bombadil! He's not that big of a deal, is he?
I am still torn though on Mockingbird, not on how much I love it because I do, but on how much it really adds/changes from the book. Most of the positives I heard Paul and Amy mention are straight up from the book. Paul said the direction was sort of 'avant garde' and I'm not so sure I agree, it feels fairly straightforward and simple to me. I mean, obviously, not screwing up a very popular book is not an easy thing to do, so credit there. But as a top-100 film of all-time? What does this film do cinematically that's all so special?
For example, I think the Lord of the Rings should be on there as an adaption, because it adapts such a complicated work of fantasy history and it pushed computer effects much further than just about anything before it. But I'm a little less sure about Mockingbird, which I'm having a hard time seeing on its own separate from the book. I'm leaning to the acting (by Peck and the kids and everyone!) as being enough to push it there, but I'm still a tiny bit torn.

Other non-musical movies would be welcome, but I do like having some sort of 'limits' on it, so it's not just 'here's a movie'.
Cam Bert's idea of doing a round of different genres might be interesting.

Yea definitely. It's not like there isn't some feminist messages in there, but as I said in my Letterboxd, it's basic. Almost too basic, if you ask me. So basic that it might even hamper the film's points entirely.

Brannaugh's description is wild:
"Tootsie is a superb comedy of deceptive simplicity. It at once parodies satirises and glorifies art, acting, cinema, TV and modernity at large. Hoffman is magnificent, Murray is sublime, and Jessica Lange's radiance is heart-stopping."
It's like the feminist parts of it don't exist. He loves it for spoofing television! Out of all of Tootsie's points, "look how crazy soap operas are" is pretty far down the list.

No I get it, and that's true. The point to me though isn't "is this funny enough?", it's "is it quality enough?" It's definitely sharper comedy than Bosom Buddies. It doesn't necessarily do anything better to get its points across though, except having a bunch of actors act as if it were a drama I guess. (That's the part I like about this.) Though looking at this through a lens of film genres, it's using screwball comedy situations, but I dunno, I still question these plot points as not being the best choices they could have made.
I definitely agree that it's good that his drag-ness isn't a punchline, but like Roz said on the pod, he's in drag for the purpose of work/conniving a job/stealing a role from a real woman; not a lifestyle choice. I find that limits its effectiveness.
Yea maybe Les is just more an awkward thing. But still, the end result is 'omg he actually fell for a guy' and whether that's for laughs or pity, it's still there. Also when Les finds out, his first reaction is to want to punch him. Doesn't he say something like "you're only alive because we never kissed"?

One thing I've been thinking about lately and really noticing is the sort of cinematic language that these films use. It's why I defended Chinatown in the face of a general indifference: I think it really has its own language in how it tells its story.
Paul kept saying Tootsie was more than just Bosom Buddies, and that's sort of true in some regard: but also not so much. Take all the actions of the story: now he has to take care of a baby, oh now he is in some vaguely homophobic misunderstanding because a man is in love with him (his love interest's dad no less!), etc. These plot points are not any different than what you'd see on Bosom Buddies. So even if they're making a valid statement, or being funny!, it's just not done in a quality way with any sort of originality or creativity.
Oh and how about the numerous music montages? Great films don't get to use that shortcut so many times in one movie. By my count, there were five. That's ridiculous.
All the decisions they made to tell this story are not at all elevated from any old '80s drag comedy, even if maybe the acting is better. There's just not enough here for me to think it should be a classic to any level, and I'm totally baffled that it is.
I have it last on my list of the 47 movies we've seen. I may enjoy it a little more than some of the others down near the bottom, but that's not all we're looking at here. I can sort of accept the pioneering nature of it, but even there, I'm not sure it's enough. One thing I think would improve this is though Hoffman's character dresses as a woman, he never truly identifies as one, so the perspective offered seems very narrow to me.
I think what Bill Murray said about Hoffman and Pollack was illuminating: they had no idea what they were making. They should have let Bill direct it and turn it into what he was seeing could be.